IAmNick

60?! Only 7 teams scored more than that last year, and 2 of the top 6 scored less. Weird comment.

Enjoying watching this!

Blimey talk about a strong introduction, couple of great bits of play by Scott

Did you know people have died this very year even though - and get this - they had their seatbelt on? Clear indication they don't work in my eyes and it's all a ploy by Big Seatbelt to enslave us all. What next, seatbelts on bikes? A seatbelt on every chair in the world? Am I going to be banned for sitting down now if the government gets their way? Ridiculous. It's just a slippery slope towards a totalitarian nightmare.

Look. I'll contact my friends on my government trackable smart phone, get in my car with a government mandated license and insurance, travel to the pub with a government license to serve heavily regulated alcohol (the government has banned the kids I got with from having any though), before going to the city ground regularly inspected by government health and safety teams with multiple licenses, and sitting in my seat as the government have banned terraces so I can't stand. I'll have to have a cigarette on the way though as the government have banned me smoking and drinking in there. What I will NOT acquiesce to though is the government deciding what I can and can't do!

You're both right that there are a huge number of variables, but from what I've read before data indicates the impact they have on a shot being a goal or not drops off quite quickly as you'd expect. Just because there are 10,000 variables doesn't mean you need to use even 100 to get a very accurate model. I think people looking at some criticism would be surprised how much data they take into account. Statsbomb for example use things like the pass height into the attacker, and the height of the ball when subsequently struck by them - and those aren't just blindly applied, they're all weighted depending on the other factors as well I believe. edit: If people want some interesting(!) links: https://www.fantasyfootballfix.com/blog-index/how-we-calculate-expected-goals-xg/ https://statsbomb.com/2018/05/the-dual-life-of-expected-goals-part-2/ https://www.thesignificantgame.com/portfolio/do-naive-xg-models-underestimate-expected-goals-for-top-teams/ https://theanalyst.com/eu/2021/06/what-are-expected-goals-xg/ And as @Banned User was asking about code, here's a decent example of how you can get some way towards creating your own xG model: https://www.datofutbol.cl/xg-model/ (the associated code is here I believe if that's your thing: https://github.com/Dato-Futbol/xg-model)

I don't agree. As we've seen from last season for example, performances and results can vary and the more ways a team has to help measure that can help point to ways they can then improve. xG is simply another analysis tool to help interpret a performance and result. It shouldn't be used in isolation in my opinion, or seen to be "right" or "wrong" on an individual basis.

They don't say what should and shouldn't be a goal, I think you're misunderstanding. They build a probabilistic model based off data which then gives the chance of it being a goal - they're not "saying" anything. You could argue they're selecting which statistics are important or not, but that's different from them writing something that says it's a goal or not. There are many, many papers of xG across a wide variety of sports if you're interested. Generally reading someone's code isn't a great way of working out what it does and why. If you're expecting it to always be right and know "exactly what an xG is" you're approaching it from the wrong angle. It's a tool to determine probability, that's all.

His answers sound EXACTLY like the ones you pick in a pre/post match interview on the football manager games.

Hope so - Shrewsbury would be an ideal place to send some of our kids on loan in my opinion. We know the manager and what to expect from him and his standards, I can see him and Pearson getting on reasonably well, it's a quiet place where they're not going to get into trouble or swept up into "the lifestyle", and only a couple of hours from Bristol.

Why do you trust him rather than the many more "credible scientists" on the other side? That's minutes from a SAGE meeting, talking about high numbers of infections in combination with high levels of vaccination. You said this: That's disinformation. You also said this: Which is missing a massive amount of context and being presented in an intentionally misleading and alarming way.

"Injuries"... the absolute vast majority are things like "sore arm" you just missed that off your screenshot as it doesn't agree with what you were saying. And WHY do you trust that specific government data, but not all the other government data telling you to get the vaccine?

Actually we have a number of ways we count them. Excess deaths (up around 85k in 2020 alone), deaths within 27 days of a positive test (about 130k), and deaths with covid on the death certificate (around 150k). There's also the issue of your argument being: - I don't trust the government! - But here's some government data and data from the yellow card scheme to back up what I said - But don't look at the rest of the government data, or the rest of the yellow card scheme, I don't trust that again (because it doesn't agree with my very specific viewpoint) It's completely logically inconsistent

Brilliant free thinking again, did you miss this bit during your no doubt extensive research? "The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness." "It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccinations as many factors can influence ADR reporting." "It is very important to note that a Yellow Card report does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused that reaction or event." How about this bit from the exact same scheme you're linking? "Vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19 and have already saved thousands of lives. Everyone should continue to get their vaccination when asked to do so unless specifically advised otherwise." Or is all that stuff not trustworthy, but the bit you linked is?

Hahah, you mean like posting a fullfact.org post and not reading it? Or using their quote of the facebook article they're debunking to back up your point? True free thought! Absolutely laughable.